Glen, That's a fairly complex model. Would you be willing to present some concrete examples of how it might work? I would find that useful in attempting to understand it.
Thanks. -- Russ Abbott Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:37 AM ∄ uǝlƃ <[email protected]> wrote: > To restate it, the mechanism consists of: > > • a mesh of parallel processes evolving in time > • each process has a local branching structure for what might happen next > • these branches (and the events that walk them) compose > • that composition is monitored and remembered within some scope > • that monitor/memory is used by a controller to edit the branching > structures > > What we call "free will" is the extent to which, and perhaps the *shape* > of, the branching structure(s) change over time. It's infeasible to measure > the branching structures directly, especially 10 years later trying to > decide if your mom's an alcoholic or not. But we can estimate the wiggle in > the composite behavior over time and retro-infer whatever branching > structure monitoring, remembering, and editing might have taken place. > > I think to adequately falsify this mechanism, we could implement a few > (several would be better) versions of it, sweep their parameters and > classify the results. If none of them exhibit clear components and some > kind of *sensitivity* in one or more parameters, then the basic mechanism > can't generate the phenomena we're looking for. > > I think the most important parameters would be the scope of the composer > (which processes to include and which to truncate), the fidelity of the > monitor, the size of the memory, and the kind of edits (point mutations or > something more drastic). It would be validating (and pretty cool) if, say, > with a memory size N, entrainment happens quickly, but with memory size > N+M, the system flips between 2 behavior/output components. But finding > something like that would be a negative result. We'd merely have programmed > in the behavior we *wanted* to see come out. > > And it would be interesting to include stochasticity peppered throughout > to see if that had an effect on the sensitivity or robustness of the output > components. > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> > http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
